User:Gcmorgan/District of Columbia V. Exxon Mobil Corp/Cmg23 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gcmorgan, Eman3502, Jerseymike7, Yellow78, Acruss21


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gcmorgan/District_of_Columbia_V._Exxon_Mobil_Corp?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Background

 * "Exxon Mobil is one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world" duplicate sentence
 * Need to add in-text citations
 * Could include information about things like how long exxon has been around and when the D.C. Consumer Procedures Act was enacted
 * "Among Exxon Mobil Corp are BP Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil Company, P.L.C. and BP America Inc., and Chevron Corporation and Chevron USA, Inc.," I think this section could be included under exxon mobile and then you can just say the subsidiaries are also being sued
 * could include evidence like what statements they are using as evidence for suing exxon

Environmental Impact

 * You say the case doesn't focus on specific harms in the first paragraph and then list specific harms like deforestation in the second, i think this may need to be rephrased or removed
 * Specific data may need to be used about contributions to greenhouse gases or it just comes across as biased against exxon
 * are the contributions of exxon listed in the second paragraph part of the lawsuit? if not you should clarify that or add subheadings to each of these sections to clarify information from the law suit and exxon's general impact on the environment and i think more quantitative data to back up these claims is needed
 * in text citations needed

Economic Impact

 * Changing between discussing the case in past tense and future tense, the first section makes it seem like it has not happened yet so I think future tense needs to be standardized so removing sentences like "The District of Columbia V. Exxon Mobil Corp was a landmark case that had a significant impact on the economy of the United States." and stating instead that the premises of this case are significant for the US economy
 * Some anti-exxon bias, might want to rephrase things like "they claim to be", "will see consequences of their actions", "even if the case sides with exxon" "served as a wake up call" and just say things like exxon disagrees with the claims of DC and holds that they are a leader in climate change action etc and rewrite the section without bias or possible predictions like "it will make other companies reconsider their carbon footprint" as this is only supposed to present factual and current information and is not an argument
 * There are no quantitative data points for an economic section, if you can find data like how much investors would lose or what they would be projected to pay if they lose the case from economists that would be great to include
 * in-text citations

Political Impact

 * This is an encyclopedia and is supposed to present factual information that we are sure of, saying things like "The government might feel pressure" is an assumption. If climate activists were fundamental in getting DC to sue exxon you should include that information as it has already happened
 * Examine your sentences for anti-government or anti-exxon bias, saying things like there is public concern as to why the government did not intervene sooner and explaining the premise of the case is good but saying they were caught and vocab like that comes across as less objective
 * in-text citations

Media Coverage

 * "In a quote obtained by the Washington Post ExxonMobil spokesperson Casey Norton denied the allegations brought by the case stating that it is part of a campaign amongst governments to bring down energy companies. Norton further bashed the cases stating they do not bring meaningful action to mitigate climate change and are an inappropriate use of taxpayer money." I think this kind of repeats things that you said in the first few sentences and you could condense this paragraph
 * could have subheadings for coverage siding with exxon and coverage siding with DC
 * in-text citations

Similar Cases

 * in-text citations
 * include the names of the cases like District of Columbia V. Exxon Mobil Corp
 * NY one was mentioned earlier, can definitely be in both sections but it's also an option to condense this and not mention it under environmental impacts because it isn't really related to this case

Overall

 * tone definitely a little biased against exxon
 * could use more quantitative data
 * some repetitive information that could be condensed
 * more use of subheadings could be beneficial for structure, especially if there are two unrelated paragraphs or ideas in a section
 * for images you can use like a neutral court building or something but since you cannot use company logos and you don't want it to be biased I wouldn't include a photo of exxon or environmental damage
 * add reputable citations and in-text citations